reply on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 18 replies \ @ek 27 Oct \ parent \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin

sidestep the actual solution to lack of scalability (increasing the block size to 2017-19 BCH levels)

A block size increase scales transaction throughput linearly: 10x bigger blocks => 10x more transactions per block

You think we can scale bitcoin by continuing to increase block size, for example until we can match VISA with 65,000 tps?

0 sats \ 17 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct

I'd rather it be one agreed upon (unlikely to occur) size that's implemented in a way that ensures both compatibility and minimum breakage; BCH is at 32 MB block sizes now, so having BSC at just half of that at 16 MB would do so much for scalability, including having most (if not all) of Lightning's functionality on-chain.

0 sats \ 16 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

How many transactions per second can bitcoin handle with 16 MB blocks?

(Or maybe I should say confirmations per second.)

0 sats \ 15 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct

Most sources have it at its current 2 MB blocksize at 3-7 TPS, so multiplying the highest value gives us 56 TPS; the lowest value at 3 TPS multiplied would still give us 24 TPS, which whilst not comparable to VISA's TPS is far better than what BSC has now.

Still nowhere near BCH's 200 TPS, but an improvement would be felt. That's not even factoring in transaction fees, which aren't a thing (officially) in BCH due to its prioritization of cheap and fast transactions (most of the time), but if you wanted something confirmed instantly, you could pay 50¢ or a full U.S. dollar (or stacker pleb's local fiat equivalent) in sats if you so chose.

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

Have fun with 200 TPS while I use lightning.

Fees aren’t a thing in BCH because there’s no demand.

Your instant confirmation is zero or one confirmation. You should not accept on-chain payments with just one confirmation.

0 sats \ 13 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct

I use what I do currently in spite of my increasingly vocal hangups, because it's as I've said on Nostr, it's still better than fiat in spite of everything being done to make it suck.

Hopefully you're acknowledging where Lightning falls short at both a technical and usability level (when it works, I mostly have no issue with it functionally). If things had to be done the exact way it was again, but with eight years of hindsight, the best of Lightning itself and Cashu would be the system I'd prefer under those specific circumstances.

25 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

Hopefully you're acknowledging where Lightning falls short at both a technical and usability level

I do

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct

Good to hear that, even if you don't feel the way I do about the scalability problem (and question). We can both agree though that undefined blocks that are allowed to balloon to hell are bad, at the very least.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

What’s an undefined block?

view all 2 replies

5 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

Do you acknowledge increasing the block size to “scale bitcoin” does not make sense given that it does not solve the problem, only delay it?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ryu 27 Oct

Scaling it to try to beat traditional payment processors, I do agree that's a nonsensical pursuit and endeavor.

Increasing it to remain and retain competitive ability and decentralization at an individual level isn't something I feel is nonsense though.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 27 Oct

If we can’t beat traditional payment processors and bitcoin will still actually be used for payments one day everywhere in the world, these traditional payment processors will build centralized solutions on top.

view all 5 replies